Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
When smart and well-educated professionals misbehave, ethicists have to
wonder if we could have done anything to prevent it. After all, while it may
be morally satisfying to simply assign full blame for the woes of Enron, Tyco,
Worldcom, and others, to corrupt corporate leaders, such an analysis begs the
further questions: Why did morally deficient actors rise to such prominent
positions in the first place? Why were the prevailing standards, policies, and
practices of professional ethics embodied in implicit and explicit ethical
controls so unable to regulate conduct that in hindsight seems obviously
beyond the pale? One plausible answer has to do with the impotence of standard
utilitarian and deontological styles of reasoning, in the face of prevailing
uncertainty about values and outcomes in the context of the new economy.
These concerns are especially acute in computer ethics; while change and
uncertainty is a problem in business, it is at the very heart of computing and
the circumstance that gives rise to computer ethics (Moor, 1985). In general, if
one cannot rationally determine the outcomes of action or how to evaluate those
outcomes, then utilitarian and deontological reasoning cannot guide action, and
this leaves ample room for rationalisation, and this undermines the efficacy of
these approaches to computer ethics.
In contrast, principles of good character do not derive from statements of eternal,
universal values or fortuitous outcomes; a virtue is a trait of character that is
good for the person who has it, where the value of good character derives from
the agents own commitments. It follows that virtue ethics is not susceptible
to rationalisations based on extrinsic rewards, which are made uncertain by a
prevailing relativism about values or by a volatile economic environment. An
analysis of the culture of computing grounds the classical virtues of integrity,
honesty, courage, and good judgement in the antecedent beliefs and values
109
typical of those entering the profession. Virtue helps to flesh out the spirit of
the profession, as this stands behind professional codes and other artefacts of
professional ethics.
The principle aim of this paper is to introduce the educated lay reader, especially
current and future computer professionals, to the basic advantages and strategies
associated with the use of virtue terms in the description and prescription
of ethical conduct. In light of this goal, the essay seeks to capture the main
ideas that motivate a virtue- or character-centred approach to ethics, while
remaining uncommitted with respect to a number of interesting theoretical and
philosophical matters, including even the question of whether the thoughtful
application of virtue terms to practical reasoning should be conceived as any
kind of theory at all. An applied ethics of virtue is found in thinkers as diverse
as Aristotle to Nietzsche, and it is not the aim of this essay to advance one or
another particular approach or to address the metaphysical or epistemological
doctrines that distinguish them. Virtue discourse works as a guide to action, no
matter how these foundational questions should turn out, and that may be the
principle advantage of the virtue ethics approach to applied ethics. If this essay
succeeds in showing that there are good reasons to become fluent in the language
of virtue, then a further examination of the particular accounts of virtues, and
whether virtue ethics is an alternative ethical theory or an alternative to ethical
theory, can be fruitfully explored.
the rules of right conduct, the antecedent culture identifies values that generate
reasons for action, even in the absence of clear rules of conduct. Moreover,
the authority of the culture need not be asserted as expressing categorical
judgements of value. Relative assertions will do just fine. The normative force of
the code is settled, at least within the practice of engineers, by correctly noting:
This is who we are; this is what we value; this is how we achieve our goals.
This, however, raises a number of questions. Some have to do with making the
account more clear: Where the particular principles and clauses of the code
break down, how does one guide action? That is, how can one articulate the
spirit of the code when its deontological formulation is questioned? What are
the units for such an analysis? What are the terms of debate when the spirit of
the code is itself in dispute? Other questions have to do with the evaluation of
the written code: Does this code actually express the culture of the profession?
Is that culture worthy of expression in a code? Some of these issues turn on
an empirical description of the culture, while others demand normative and
conceptual clarification. Both sorts of concerns will be addressed below with
respect to the profession of computing. What we find is that the space between
the lines of the code is populated by virtue, and that virtue terms can adjudicate
and articulate moral debate without the problems identified for utilitarianism
and deontology.
113
Computer technology does have evangelists, and those who embrace computing
sufficiently share values and beliefs such that they represent a coherent social
unit.
On the other hand, as with hippies or Bible-thumpers, there are a host of
subcultures and competing assumptions among computing enthusiasts.
Furthermore, social categories routinely overlap. Some computer geeks are
Bible-thumpers, and some computer geeks are hippies. Fortunately, it turns out
that these complications have very little impact with respect to the main thesis
of this essay. If an appeal to the core values of geek culture is sufficient to ground
the virtues, then it is proved that geek culture combined with Evangelical
Christianity or tree-hugging environmentalism is sufficient to ground the virtues.
It is left open whether these combinations can be coherent and sustained. While
I am sure there is good reason to have other commitments as well, the purpose
of this essay is simply to see how much ethical content can be gleaned from the
culture of computing by itself. For that purpose, what matters is whether the
spirit of professional ethics can be articulated in terms any computer enthusiast
would have to grant simply in virtue of being a computer enthusiast.
The reason for focusing on the culture of the enthusiast instead of what might
be the more enlightened or elevated culture of mature computer professionals
stems from the educational function of professional ethics, and especially the
IEEE/ACM code. (IEEE/ACM, 1999) Appealing to the judgements of mature
members of the profession amounts to little more than preaching to the choir,
unless it can be shown that these judgements are implied by the antecedent
aspirations of the intended audience. Insofar as professional ethics is for the
enculturation of new members to the profession, arguments for more mature
attitudes must appeal to attitudes already consonant with those of prospective
professionals. Students who aspire to become computer professionals are
typically motivated by either the promise of a lucrative career in computing,
or an antecedent enthusiasm for technology (or both). Enthusiasm for money
has little to do with computing, per se; enthusiasm for technology, however,
obviously does. As we shall see, an analysis of the virtues (especially integrity)
shows that mere enthusiasm for wealth is problematic as a way of life, even on
its own terms; but if it is demonstrated that the values of the profession can
be conceived as the mature expression of enthusiasm for technology, then one
important category of serious students can be motivated to think professionally.
The bottom line is that a successful education needs to start where the students
are, and an important category of students has already embraced geek culture.
It may seem that mere enthusiasm for technology is too squalid as a way of life
to ground ethical judgements. A closer look at the cultural artefacts and selfreflecting essays of geek culture, however, reveals values that amply serve as
114
raw material for a more substantive ethics. The assertion that Technology is
cool expresses an evaluation that connects with a wide range of other values
and ultimately grounds a coherent conception of the good life.
Wired magazine features a monthly department titled, Fetish: technolust. In
this department, cool new gadgets and technologies are described alongside fullcolour glossy photos. Sometimes the descriptions make it clear why the editors
believe a featured device is desirable enough to be compared to the erotic, but
most of the time it suffices to simply describe what it does. The audience of
Wired does not need to be told what makes something cool. However, such
judgements need not be inarticulate. In fact, just the opposite is the norm.
Product reviews are surely among the most ubiquitous of written artefacts in
geek culture. They are found in magazines like Wired, MacWorld, SysAdmin,
PlanetPDA, and PCWorld; they are the foundation of huge and famous websites
like Toms Hardware Guide, and they are regular subjects of debate on Slashdot.
For the ethicist or cultural anthropologist, what is significant about product
reviews is that they express evaluations based on the common values that help
to define the culture. In this context, the fact that Wired can simply display
certain items as obviously worthy of technolust demonstrates the extent to
which these values can be taken for granted, at least among members of the
culture. The coolness of some objects does not need to be demonstrated; it is
observed.
Judging that a gadget is cool is in large measure an aesthetic judgement. This
aesthetic is exemplified in the behaviour of a high-school friend who used to
compete in computer programming contests at a nearby engineering college.
These events were typically followed by a small trade show where technology
and engineering companies would display their latest work in the hopes of
attracting future employees. (Note, they displayed their works; they did not
advertise salaries). My friend discovered at one of these shows a mini-switch
that completely captivated him. These switches were nothing special to look
at, but he loved the solid, sturdy feel in such a small device, and especially the
tactile and auditory feedback it gave the user. When one clicked the button,
one knew instantly whether the thing had switched. Clickety-click. He handed
one to me, beaming with the same expression a singer friend wore at his first
Broadway musical. Clickety-click. This is a nice switch, he gushed. Clicketyclick. For weeks after, he carried a pocketful of these switches with him,
absentmindedly clicking them in satisfaction as he worked and played. Like
most aesthetic judgements, it is hard to convey the meaning of this experience
to anyone who does not already get it; it is not merely to recognise but truly
to appreciate quality craftsmanship and clever technical solutions to ordinary
problems, the way one might appreciate a painting in a museum or a music
performance.
115
116
commitments, and ordinary ways of reacting to the world that explain and
justify his or her behaviour. We routinely rely on traits of character to predict
behaviour and to thereby justify reliance. For example, we say, He is a hardworking fellow. Im sure hell get the job done. And to be sure, the fact that he
is a hard-working fellow is among the reasons he was entrusted with the task
in the first place. Evaluations of character are standard practice in everyday life
probably more common and useful than evaluations of action. Both positive
terms like sweety, cool, and upbeat; and epithets like creep, jerk, putz,
or bonehead are all evaluations of character in the sense that they speak to
the being of the person evaluated rather than his or her actions. The ethical
terms of everyday life in contrast to the stuffy and stilted evaluations of
academic philosophy are aretaic, not deontic. Notice that these evaluations
and our reliance on them to predict and explain behaviour assume that traits of
character are relatively immutable and deep. For this reason, any agent will have
to take evaluations of her own character very seriously, whatever her particular
projects and other pursuits might be.
Character is typically analysed and evaluated in terms of the virtues. By a virtue
is meant any trait of character that is good for the agent who manifests it, while
a vice is a character trait that is bad for the agent. To say that a person manifests
or lacks a virtue is both to describe and evaluate that person at the same time,
and the description and evaluation cannot be separated without distorting the
meaning of the term. As Philippa Foot notes, virtue terms are not unique in
this respect. For example, one cannot understand what an injury describes
without also understanding that it is bad to be injured. The surgeon does not
injure a patient in the course of performing needed surgery, even if her actions
are accurately described as cutting someone with a sharp knife, leaving a
wound (Foot, 1978). Similarly, one cannot gloss the descriptive meaning of a
virtue or vice without understanding the normative context that would make
the designation appropriate or inappropriate. For example, while honesty is the
virtue related to truth-telling, it would be wrong to say a person is dishonest
because he told a client that last minute changes to a project will be no problem.
It is surely not a mark of bad character that a person takes challenging clients
in stride. Even though his utterance is not the whole truth, dishonesty does not
describe everyone who makes an untrue statement. For proper use of the term,
the evaluation matters as much as the description.
So we need to get clear about the evaluative content of the virtues as well as
their descriptive components. In the Aristotelian tradition, when thinking of
the virtues it is helpful to put things in terms of the Doctrine of the Golden
Mean, which is a sort of heuristic for understanding the way virtue terms
typically work. It must be emphasised that the Doctrine of the Golden Mean
is not a principle for deducing the nature of a virtue, nor is it the last word
118
in the name of some abstract notion of the moral law or maximum overall
net utility. Rather, virtues are an indispensable means to success in ones own
pursuits. Who does one intend to convince with lawyerly and overly clever
defences? Talking ones self into bad character does the gravest harm to ones
self, on ones own terms. When the ultimate judge and jury consist in the values
to which one is already personally committed, the notion of getting away with
it loses all meaning. Getting away from whom? Yourself? How could that be a
victory? Once this is understood, the more abstract and theoretical concerns of
moral philosophy no longer stand in the way of applied ethics. This is especially
valuable in the context of professional ethics, since an analysis of the culture
and values that define the profession reveals the relevant commitments (and the
ongoing terms of discussion about them within the tradition), such that Know
Thyself! becomes a tractable imperative.
As for guiding action, one must not misunderstand the sense in which attention
to ones own character serves as a guide to action. Sometimes, utilitarian and
deontological ethics have encouraged scholars to mistakenly think that a good
guide to action will churn out a precise list of dos and donts. Against this,
and echoing the IEEE/ACM code cited above, Rosalind Hursthouse notes the
absurdity of thinking that ethics can be reduced to a simple algorithm that
can be mastered by any clever adolescent (Hursthouse, 1991). Ethics involves
reflecting on the nature and meaning of life itself. It is preposterous to suppose
this can be accomplished by simply doing the maths, or that it can be reduced
to one or several simple rules.
Virtue ethics guides action by focusing ones attention on ones striving to be
the sort of person one wants to be. It asks one to reflect on who one is, and to
evaluate ones own way of life in light of the sum total of ones commitments
and values. Of course, not all ways of life can withstand this scrutiny. While
desirable ways of life will ground virtues that form a coherent whole and confer
direction and meaning to ones life, ways of life that do not imply the classical
virtues are generally incoherent or otherwise undesirable. Acknowledging this
presents one with an opportunity to revise ones conception of the good life
and to become the sort of person one wishes to become a person of good
character, on ones own terms. When a person manifests good character, her
actions flow immediately from her character in a manner akin to instinct or
habit. The spirit of ethics guides her action, not the letter of the law.
Virtue ethics is illustrated by showing how the way of life associated with the
culture of computing generates the virtues while close alternatives do not. As we
shall see, this analysis makes it clear that those living by the close alternatives
have good reason to adopt the culture of computing instead. As it turns out, the
failure to support virtuous conduct creates serious obstacles to leading the good
life, even if the good life is conceived solely on ones own terms. In contrast,
the culture of computing does support virtuous conduct leading to a coherent
and defensible conception of the good life. In short, advocates of the values that
define the technological enthusiast will be better able to succeed in the pursuit
of these values if they manifest the virtues of integrity, honesty, courage, and
good judgement.
Integrity is the virtue associated with the right amount of steadfastness in
ones defining values, goals, and other commitments. Just as the integrity of
a building is given by its structural soundness, the person of integrity stands
firm and true. Being pig-headed, narrow, or stubborn are vices of excess with
respect to steadfastness, while one who is flighty, unserious, or inconstant is
deficient in this good. In contrast, the person of integrity is open to criticism
and will change her course as necessary, but only in light of good reasons and
due deliberation. The person of integrity can be relied on to be who she is in
spite of temptations or distractions. As one slogan has it, Integrity is doing the
right thing even when no-one is looking. The person of integrity does what she
does because that is what she is all about, not because somebody might or might
not be looking.
For the culture of computing, integrity involves conceiving ones life as a quest
in pursuit of technological progress and embracing the practices and social
institutions necessary for that pursuit. One does not manifest integrity if one
behaves in a manner that will undermine the success of ones core projects. In
light of this, teaching new members of the profession to value the profession
itself can be cast in terms of integrity. As scholars of technology routinely
emphasise, and as contributors to Slashdot often assert, technology is a social
endeavour. Technology consists not only of artifacts and the tools and processes
needed to produce them, but also of the entire social organisation of people and
materials that permits the acquisition of the knowledge and skills needed to
design, manufacture, distribute, use, repair, and eventually dispose of these
artifacts (Winston, 2003). Commitment to the technological project therefore
issues in a commitment to the whole set of social institutions presupposed by
that project. Thus, even for a computer professional who starts with nothing
but an appreciation of cool technology, being true to his conception of the good
requires a commitment to, among other things, the profession itself. The virtue
of personal integrity hereby stands behind the IEEE/ACM codes declaration
that, Software engineers shall advance the integrity and reputation of the
profession consistent with the public interest.
121
security undermines the advance of technology, since any harm to the public
will engender fear of similar projects in the future. Especially when money is
tight or when managers do not comprehend the possible consequences of shoddy
work, it can take real courage to maintain ones integrity and the integrity of the
profession.
After integrity, good judgement may be the most important of the virtues since,
without good judgement, the other virtues cannot be relied on to secure ones
goals. If one mistakes technology for the gadgets it produces, or if one does
not accurately foresee how a project might advance or undermine the goal of
technological progress, then ones bad judgement will undermine ones integrity.
Good judgement is difficult to characterise without circularity; one cannot
merely describe good judgement in terms of getting right results, since that
would leave evaluations of character hostage to fortuitous outcomes. Instead,
good judgement needs to be conceived in terms of a method for arriving at
right answers, and this suggests having the right amount of concern for both
rational rigour and educated perception in fixing belief. Reasoning that is
shallow, narrow, or short-sighted will not advance technological solutions, and
may actually retard the progress of technology. On the other hand, pessimistic
scepticism is directly contrary to the ethos of innovation and progress. To avoid
either extreme, the good computer professional needs to develop a fine aesthetic
sensibility for good design and a habit of working out problems through rational
debate within a wider community. Fortunately, the resources of good judgement
are at the very heart of geek cultures embrace of rationality situated in a critical
community of debate and justification.
So it seems that the classical virtues can be grounded in the values of geek
culture. While our discussion has only addressed a handful of the classical
virtues, and only in a cursory way, it should be clear how further discussion
might proceed. In general, once one has uncovered a set of values and beliefs
sufficient to ground a way of life as a quest, showing how the virtues emerge
from such a way of life is a trivial matter. Success in any quest will require
integrity, and integrity will demand coherence and richness in ones conception
of the good such that honesty, courage, good judgement, and the other virtues
more or less immediately follow.
To see this, it helps to contrast the way of life of the good computer professional
with close alternatives. For example, consider the way of life of the script kiddie.
Folks who get their kicks out of exploiting online security vulnerabilities may
have a lot in common with computer geeks, and their actions may be dimly
inspired by the same cultural background. It is clear, however, that script
kiddies lack integrity. As the term kiddie suggests, these people do not have
the technological sophistication to really understand what they are exploiting.
This reveals that they are not motivated by the technological aesthetic, at least
123
not in any mature form. Instead, they seem to be operating on the same base
motives as common vandals. Getting kicks from destroying things fails, not only
in terms of geek culture, but on its own terms. The purely negative aim of
destruction depends for its meaning on the work of those who create what is
to be destroyed. But without some positive agenda, it is impossible to conceive
ones life as a quest for something, or to evaluate ones progress with respect to
what is valuable. Because their actions are entirely parasitic on the discoveries
and creations of the geek community, the way of life of the script kiddie has no
intrinsic meaning, and will fail as a way of life. Much the same can be said of
crackers, who make it their business to defeat intellectual property protections
and distribute expensive software packages without compensation for the
authors. While this may require some technical knowhow and sophistication,
crackers are nonetheless parasites on the body of good computer professionals.
These failed ways of life might be contrasted with the info-terrorist or
technological civil disobedient. Those who conceive themselves as fighting a
guerrilla war against the perceived injustices of intellectual property rights,
dangerously sloppy computer artefacts, or even the whole technological
worldview might very well be on a quest. Indeed, they might even defend their
actions in terms drawn straight from computer culture. Information wants to
be free, they might say, or, We exploit security flaws in technology in order to
reveal them and make the technology better. These attempted justifications of
unethical conduct reveal a commitment to the values that guide the computer
profession itself, and the debate is now simply about means. The consensus view
among computer professionals is that civil disobedience is not the best means
for advancing technology. For those who oppose the hoarding of intellectual
property, participation in the creation of Free Software alternatives like Linux
or OpenOffice is a more constructive and rewarding path. Security flaws can be
revealed without handing the exploits over to script kiddies. The justifications
of technological civil disobedience are either short-sighted or they reveal an
arrogance with respect to the considered judgements of the profession and
computing culture. Either way, they reflect bad judgement.
More dangerous and troubling are those who do not embrace technological
culture, but who use technology as a means for other ends. Technology creates
powerful tools that may be put to immoral or selfish purposes. With technical
skills, con artists and other thieves can perpetrate crimes of a scale and breadth
that was previously unthinkable, while maintaining an invisibility or anonymity
that conceals the perpetrator or even the crime. Clearly, such crimes constitute
real obstacles to the advance of technology, and it is the responsibility of the
computing profession to mitigate the risks posed by those who would misuse
technology. Clearly, these behaviours are not an expression of geek culture.
Showing the ethical bankruptcy of the base hedonism that usually motivates
124
References
Davis, M, 1991, Thinking like an engineer: the place of a code of ethics in the
practice of a profession, Philosophy and Public Affairs, Spring, pp 15067.
Foot, P, 1978, Moral beliefs, in P Foot (ed), Virtues and vices, University of
California Press, pp 11031.
Gotterbarn, D, 1991, Computer ethics: responsibility regained, National
Forum, Summer, pp 2631.
Huntington, S, 2000, Cultures count, in L Harrison & S Huntington (eds),
Culture matters, Basic Books, pp xiiixvi.
Hursthouse, R, 1991, Virtue theory and abortion, Philosophy and Public Affairs,
Summer, pp 22346.
IEEE-CS/ACE Joint Task Force, 1999, Software engineering code of ethics and
professional practice, online at <http://www.computer.org/cms/Computer.
org/Publications/code-of-ethics.pdf>
Katz, J, 2000, Geeks, Broadway Books.
Ladd, J, 1980, The quest for a code of ethics: an intellectual and moral
confusion, in R Chalk, M Frankel, & S Chafer (eds), AAAS professional ethics
project: professional ethics activities in the scientific and engineering societies,
American Association for the Advancement of Science, pp 15459.
MacIntyre, A, 1984, After virtue, University of Notre Dame Press.
Moor, J, 1985, What is computer ethics, Metaphilosophy 16, pp 26675.
Rossetto, L, et al, 1998, Change is good, Wired, January, pp 163207.
Winston, M, 2003, Children of invention, in M Winston & R Edelbach (eds),
Society, ethics, and technology, Wadsworth, pp 119.
125